Hey all,
Now that Arch64 site and svn are up and running again, are we ready to start packaging!? :-) I'm curious to know who's working on packages and who has accounts, etc. (If you don't have one, contact c14n for one. If you want your name on the web page, contact him or me. We're both pretty busy ATM, so please be patient).
I think it might also be useful to discuss who's working on what. We don't have enough devs yet to assign specific people to specific packages like the Arch core team does, and each of us has different levels of experience (I, for example generally give up if I can't get it to compile within a few tries and a half-assed google search for 64 bit patches.....).
We have two issues to address, maintaining existing packages and adding new ones. maintainig packages isn't a big deal, whoever gets to updating one first should be able to submit the svn and package before anybody else wastes too much time on it. I guess if you have trouble and are working on it it wouldn't hurt to let everybody know you're trying to solve it so they can work on other stuff.
For building new packages, if there is one you are working on and having trouble with, it probably pays to let others know to reduce duplicate effort.
Lets also start a list of what needs to be worked on. Perhaps this should be put in a wiki page so we can all maintain it:
Packages needing updating: nontrivial: kernel26 initscripts
trivial: haven't had time to look
Packages needing contribution: (these are some I personally need before I consider Arch64 my primary system): OpenOffice 2 vlc jpilot
I've tried the last two and got errors that I haven't had time to investigate. Is anybody working on oo? If not, I can try to do it, but I'm not sure my packaging skills are up to snuff.
Any other ideas to help get rolling?
Dusty
Dusty Phillips schrieb:
Hey all,
Now that Arch64 site and svn are up and running again, are we ready to start packaging!? :-) I'm curious to know who's working on packages and who has accounts, etc. (If you don't have one, contact c14n for one. If you want your name on the web page, contact him or me. We're both pretty busy ATM, so please be patient).
I´m new to arch64 but have experience with AUR and before that I´ve made rpm packages for MandrivaUser.de quiet a long time.
So if you let me I´ll be with you.
AndyRTR
On Nov 29, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Dusty Phillips wrote:
Hey all,
I think it might also be useful to discuss who's working on what. We don't have enough devs yet to assign specific people to specific packages like the Arch core team does, and each of us has different levels of experience (I, for example generally give up if I can't get it to compile within a few tries and a half-assed google search for 64 bit patches.....).
c14n was considering starting a private or public (don't remember which one) mailing for this, but i suggested we use this mailing list.
Lets also start a list of what needs to be worked on. Perhaps this should be put in a wiki page so we can all maintain it:
Packages needing updating: nontrivial: kernel26 initscripts
i'd like to add the nvidia drivers to the list. I don't know that much about the ati stuff... gnome is also pretty big, but i think i could handle parts of it.
- syamajala
I was hoping to contribute these pkgs myself, but as I cannot compile anything atm, I would like to add the following to the wish list:
raptor ardour ladspa alsa-tools
BTW, could someone explain to me why we cannot just put all the 64bit libs in lib rather than lib64, (and use lib32 for later multilib expansion)?
Thanks
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 02:52:27PM -0500, seshu yamajala wrote:
On Nov 29, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Dusty Phillips wrote:
Hey all,
I think it might also be useful to discuss who's working on what. We don't have enough devs yet to assign specific people to specific packages like the Arch core team does, and each of us has different levels of experience (I, for example generally give up if I can't get it to compile within a few tries and a half-assed google search for 64 bit patches.....).
c14n was considering starting a private or public (don't remember which one) mailing for this, but i suggested we use this mailing list.
Yes, please use this mailing list. That's what it's for.
Jason
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Maluvia wrote:
BTW, could someone explain to me why we cannot just put all the 64bit libs in lib rather than lib64, (and use lib32 for later multilib expansion)?
Ok, so the reason things are done the way they are right now is because I followed debian on amd64. They use the symlink and for 32bit backwards compatibility they setup a chroot. To me this seems like a much better idea than packaging both 32bit and 64bit apps for arch64. Also the symlink is supposed to be the other way around from / lib64 to /lib i've been meaning to fix that...
If you want to install arch64, just read the wiki at http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch64_Install_page.. I'm not sure if the ISO is updated though, so manually downloading the packages and installing them is probably the best way to go for now. As for stability, I'm running arch64 stable for a month now without any issues whatsoever ( yes, nvidia drivers too). Flash doesn't work, so be prepared to install the ultra useful flashblock extension ; )
I'll resume contributing once the server issues are sorted out. When I last updated, I changed the initscripts so that at boot up you should get "Arch Linux 64 0.7.1 'Noodle' " or something similar. syamajala please let me know if you want to call it Arch Linux 64 0.1 or whatever and ill modify it.
Great to see things finally picking up
Varun 'ganja_guru' Acharya
P.S - sorry about double posting, I chose the wrong SMTP ; )
Ok, so the reason things are done the way they are right now is because I followed debian on amd64. They use the symlink and for 32bit backwards compatibility they setup a chroot. To me this seems like a much better idea than packaging both 32bit and 64bit apps for arch64.
I agree that Arch64 would be better with 32bit apps left for chroot or statically linked. Pure64 is much cleaner and simpler.
Also the symlink is supposed to be the other way around from /lib64 to /lib i've been meaning to fix that...
That makes much more sense to me - I will do a reinstall that way and see how it works.
Thanks for the clarification.
arch-ports@lists.archlinux.org